The release of the movie "Don't Look Up" on December 24th, 2021 is the highlight of the movie season for climate science. The skewering of our current science-policy is a powerful metaphor for climate change and even the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic.
There have been a number of good reviews and discussions about the movie, from the discussion of the excellent science advising from Amy Mainzer, to meta-discussions about the kind of criticism.
The film producers are making the climate change connections explicit, directing viewers to a climate platform to promote activism on the issue, though it is mostly focused on individual actions as opposed to tackling more systematic problems. Climate scientists have weighed in, including Peter Kalmus in the Guardian and Mike Mann in the Boston Globe.
I have never felt so seen as watching Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence play scientists warning of a looming apocalypse. I was wincing, anxious, nervous, sweating, and almost yelled at the screen. Listen to the scientists.
>
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson is a doctor.
If you want to see what life has been like for climate scientists and activists over the last 20 years, you can watch the film "Dont Lookup Film" with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence.
>
Daniel Bleakley posted on December 27, 2021.
Climate professionals and civilians should see what the others are saying.
There are some personal thoughts.
Like Ayana, Mike, and Peter, I saw a number of elements that were similar to my experience in climate. The interviewer starts to go in a totally bizarre direction and you get the feeling of a deer in the headlights on live TV. I remember a similar situation with Lou Dobbs, when he was still a massive egotist. There is a scene where Dr. Mindy is arguing with people. Dibiasky feels like they don't have control over their image/words when they get meme-ified.
The implication that all climate science communicators are at all times just a moment away from screaming that "we're all doomed!" is a joke, but not real. It could be true for some people, but I think it isn't true for most. The act of communication itself is an act of advocacy, and people do it in order to create a change somewhere. The message she wanted to convey was that the situation was imminent and serious but people could act to mitigate it and that was all due to the character of her. If there was nothing to be done, why bother to talk about it?
Is there a difference between tornado politics and other science-policy issues?
The first extreme of the spectrum is where the values at stake/immediacy of the problem mean that there was no dispute about what to do. The second situation is where the dispute is over basic values for which science discoveries don't have much bearing, such as abortion in the US. In the first example, the science helps guide action, while in the second, the science is often politicized and used as justification of previously held positions. The misuse of science, the rise of conspiracy theories, and personal attacks on scientists can all occur in this second situation.
The actions of some companies during the recent tornado outbreak in Kentucky, as well as the ongoing Pandemic, have all shown that there are no circumstances where values are not important. Every decision we make is influenced by the values we are told about from science and other related sources. Values are more embedded than devotion to rationality or logic and there is always the potential for a dispute. People can behave badly when there are high stakes.
There were two articles this week, one from a public health professional and one from a health journalist. The writers assumed that the cause of action should be driven by the science, and that the issue of science-policy was a pure tornado politics case.
Every issue does not get politicized because of the values embedded in decisions. Differences in location, culture, governmental competence, basic levels of trust, depth of social ties, and other factors can make a huge difference in how fertile the cultural soil is for the kind of misinformation typical of the science-policy disputes. Leadership is perhaps the most important factor. Opinion-formers have more sway over their bases than opinion writers do. Over the course of the Pandemic, science inputs have been taken seriously by leaders in some places and they have seen better outcomes.
The example of leadership failing to rise to the occasion, despite the best and worst efforts of the scientists, is given in the song "Don't Look Up". It doesn't have to be that way, but it's rarely the scientists' fault.
